Advertisement

Official Ignores Cable ‘Conflict,’ Votes for 5% Fee

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

In an unusual move, a cable television company placed an ad in City Councilman Jack Kelly’s newspaper opposing a new cable television fee, then told him that he would have a conflict of interest if he voted on the fee.

City Atty. Gail C. Hutton, however, said he would have no such conflict, and Kelly voted Monday night on the controversial cable TV issue. He favored imposing a new 5% utility fee on cable TV, which Paragon Cable had bitterly opposed. The vote for the new fee was 5 to 1, with five votes needed to pass the revenue-raising measure.

Kelly, owner of the weekly Huntington Beach News, said Tuesday that he is not sure if Paragon Cable tried to ensnare him by placing a $3,200 two-page ad against the fee in the News about two weeks ago.

Advertisement

“I don’t know,” Kelly said. “It’s quite possible.”

Don Weddle, spokesman for Paragon Cable, on Tuesday emphatically denied that any attempt was made to “trap” Kelly by placing an ad in his paper.

“That charge is entirely without merit,” Weddle said.

Dana Reed, an attorney for Paragon, warned Kelly not to vote on the cable TV issue at Monday night’s council meeting. Reed noted that the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission forbids a governmental official’s voting on a matter in which he or she has a financial interest.

“The penalties under the (state) act are most Draconian,” Reed warned.

Councilwoman Grace Winchell asked, “Did Paragon know before (the ad was published) or after about this (alleged) conflict of interest?”

Reed responded, “I don’t know.”

On Tuesday, Reed said he did not believe that Paragon had tried to trap Kelly. Reed added that he had urged Kelly and the council to delay a vote on the cable TV fee until they could get an advisory legal opinion from the FPPC.

“It only takes 14 days to get such a written opinion from the commission,” Reed said.

Weddle, the spokesman for Paragon, said the firm does not plan to file a complaint to the commission about Kelly. “That would be vengeance, and we have no interest in that,” Weddle said.

Advertisement